WTC Hotspots how did they form and sustained for so long?

Oxymoron · May 20, 2013

SR1419 said:
Here is a report on the aerosols of the debris fires at GZ:

http://delta.ucdavis.edu/WTC.htm#An...Site, New York, October 2 to October 30, 2001

When the trade center towers burned and collapsed, tons of concrete, glass, furniture, carpets, insulation, computers and paper were reduced to enormous, oxygen-poor debris piles that slowly burned until Dec. 19, 2001.

In that hot pile, some of the debris' constituent elements combined with organic matter and abundant chlorine from papers and plastics, and then escaped to the surface as metal-rich gases. These then either burned or chemically decomposed into very fine particles capable of penetrating deeply into human lungs.

Content from External Source

Could you elaborate on this post. The link appears to simply go to a site dealing with the pollutants in the air and their impact on health.

Also, I don't understand the relevance of the the quote about 'organic species being converted into gases by the heat'.

Oxymoron · May 20, 2013

Cairenn said:
It was not a kiln, it was not really a fire pit either. It was a shallow trench, most likely natural. We had bordered it with rocks I think, In fact I think some folks used it to roast weenies and marshmallows.

It was not designed to hold heat.

It sounds pretty much like a fire pit, especially once it is covered over. You said about the rocks around it, they are for reflecting, concentrating and retaining the heat. How did your example differ?

Determine the size of the pit based on your intended uses (Is the primary use creating light, keeping warm, or cooking food? How many people will be utilizing the fire?) A two-foot diameter is often sufficient for one to three people, 3-4 feet for larger groups

Dig a bowl-shaped depression that is three to eight inches deep at the center (this helps protect and concentrate coals, allowing your fire to burn bright and hot with less smoke)
Use stones to make a fire ring (this also helps protect and concentrate your fire) Caution: do not use rocks that have been submerged in water, as they can explode when heated. A stone fire pit also retains and radiates heat.

Content from External Source

http://www.wildernesscollege.com/building-a-fire-pit.html

The thing is with fire pits, they normally operate at low temperatures when covered, like a slow oven.... allowing people to come back many hours later to enjoy a slow cooked meal, without the danger of burning.

Kilns are made so they will. I also make clay sculptures, so I have a good idea of what it takes to make even the most simple kiln. I have built one in my yard.

Is it not the case that kilns operate on similar principles to fire pits but with better airflow, (often incorporating bellows or some other air pumping system), to maximise heat and better insulation to allow the heat to build?

SR1419 · May 20, 2013

Oxymoron said:
Could you elaborate on this post. The link appears to simply go to a site dealing with the pollutants in the air and their impact on health.

Also, I don't understand the relevance of the the quote about 'organic species being converted into gases by the heat'.

If you read more closely you will see that they were studying the aerosols that were released from the burning debris piles at GZ..

Studying the pollutants released by combustion from the fires should give some insight as to what was being burned-

I do not believe they found any residual thermite in their samplings- nor do I know that they would were it to even be present.

If you scroll to the bottom of the article you will find a link to the actual presentation whence these slides came- including their analysis of the fires themselves:

When the trade center towers burned and collapsed, tons of concrete, glass, furniture, carpets, insulation, computers and paper were reduced to enormous, oxygen-poor debris piles that slowly burned until Dec. 19, 2001.

In that hot pile, some of the debris' constituent elements combined with organic matter and abundant chlorine from papers and plastics, and then escaped to the surface as metal-rich gases. These then either burned or chemically decomposed into very fine particles capable of penetrating deeply into human lungs.

Content from External Source

Cairenn · May 20, 2013

We used rocks to make an edge to the burn area. One does not want the debris being burned to get into leaf clutter and spread. This pit was several feet across, at least 5 x5 ft. In that large of an area the rocks do little to reflect the heat.

There are pit kilns or clamp kilns that are mostly just deep pits, but they do not reach very high temperatures. SW Indian pottery is often fired in that type of a kiln. The pots have to be lined with some thing to water proof them, since they are not water proof.

Jazzy · May 20, 2013

myself][B][COLOR="#B22222 said:
Confirms that there were no fires.[/COLOR][/B]

Oxymoron said:
That seems reasonable. Perhaps the smouldering was confined to a limited depth

Would seem the long and short of it.

So from where does the localised heat which heated the hot spots, originate?

We are talking about the virtually lossless kinetic energy transfer of an impacting body into impacted wreckage which is predominantly composed of steel.

[video=youtube_share;JadO3RuOJGU]http://youtu.be/JadO3RuOJGU[/video]

Of course, some kinetic energy dissipated as steel hit the wreckage/rubble by friction.

But every clean hit of steel on steel would send that remaining kinetic energy directly at the base, by CONTACT and IMPACT.

Friction translated directional kinetic energy into molecular vibrational kinetic energy, known as THERMAL ENERGY.

The pile warmed up without heat concentration at the base as the steel passed through it.

But the remaining kinetic energy in the steel transferred to to the next piece of steel it collided with, and so on, until motion ceased.

All the kinetic energies of the material impacting the wreckage resolved finally as HEAT, save for the mechanical work done on the steel.

Loss-free kinetic energy transmission by impact shifted the heat gain predominantly to ground zero.

The hot spots were the natural outcome.

I suggest the chemical reaction of buried thermite which produces temperatures of up to 3000oC.

What thermite?

I would classify explanations such as the kinetic energy was within the buried and motionless steel as false.

Why? Heat IS kinetic energy in an impact-adjusted form. While falling the steel's KE is coherent. When brought to rest by inelastic impact the steel's KE becomes incoherent, manifested as an average amplitude increase of its molecular vibration.

Kinetic energy can be passed from one object to another. In the game of billiards, the player imposes kinetic energy on the cue ball by striking it with the cue stick. If the cue ball collides with another ball, it slows down dramatically and the ball it collided with accelerates to a speed as the kinetic energy is passed on to it. Collisions in billiards are effectively elastic collisions, in which kinetic energy is preserved. In inelastic collisions, kinetic energy is dissipated in various forms of energy, such as heat, and sound
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

Content from External Source

Essentially, the downward translation of KE to the base of the pile occurred by elastic collision. The collision of the pile base with ground zero occurred by inelastic collision, and resulted in HEAT.

Heat can be stored but it dissipates and reduces due to radiation

Thankyou. The heat dissipates by a circuitous route. Conduction to the surface, and radiation and convection thereafter. Steel isn't a very good conductor of heat.

An object which was in motion and therefore had kinetic energy, loses it when it comes to rest.

False when it comes to rest by elastic and inelastic impact. True if it's a bicycle and dissipating the energy by friction to its brake blocks and rims which lose it to the surrounding air.

In this instance there is nowhere for all that final heat to escape to.

It cannot be stored within the object at rest and then 'burst into flame' when it is exposed to air because of 'stored kinetic energy'.

I agree with you. That is pseudoscience. Do you think I said that? Why are YOU saying that?

This is known as heat

Thankyou.

The first problem is

Pardon me, but there is no problem here. Heat IS kinetic energy in an impact-adjusted form. While falling the steel's KE is coherent. When brought to rest by inelastic impact the steel's KE becomes incoherent, manifested in an average amplitude increase of its molecular vibration.

Kinetic energy can be passed from one object to another. In the game of billiards, the player imposes kinetic energy on the cue ball by striking it with the cue stick. If the cue ball collides with another ball, it slows down dramatically and the ball it collided with accelerates to a speed as the kinetic energy is passed on to it. Collisions in billiards are effectively elastic collisions, in which kinetic energy is preserved. In inelastic collisions, kinetic energy is dissipated in various forms of energy, such as heat, and sound
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

Content from External Source

Essentially, the downward translation of KE to the base of the pile occurred by elastic collision. The collision of the pile base with ground zero occurred by inelastic collision, and resulted in HEAT.

why did the steel not cool over time as heat naturally dissipated into its surroundings?

It did cool over time. The rate of heat loss was low because the steel was embedded in friable insulation materials.

Can you cite a real life comparable example which validates your theory that the kinetic energy was within the motionless steel?

[video=youtube_share;fnFQppu0mMg]http://youtu.be/fnFQppu0mMg[/video]

In 2008, Oilgear Korea delivered a hydraulic drive and electrical control system to power a 6000T (60MN) Two Column Push Down Open Die Forging Press.
With a moving parts weight (WOP) of over 200 tonnes and a high pressure pipe column of over 28m, Oilgear was able to achieve a performance specification of over 150 strokes per minute with an accuracy variation of less than 1.0mm.

Content from External Source

I can assure you that you would need insulating gloves to pick up that forging. Better make that tongs.

Can you justify that as to most people it would confirm the presence of air, notably oxygen.

Iron doesn't explode in the presence of "air, notably oxygen". Hydrogen does.

It merely confirms (a) huge amount (of) kinetic energy was expended, (spent... gone... used), in bending the steel.

Out of your own lips - a huge amount. But we already know that on its own, a falling piece of steel doesn't have a huge amount of KE. So where did that huge amount come from, save by KE transmission?

How can you even write "a huge amount of kinetic energy was expended" without seeing that that energy conversion couldn't possibly be an efficient one, and must inevitably end up as a huge amount of HEAT?

Do you imagine that somehow the steel impacted and convoluted itself (inelastically) into its dense tangle in a cold state?

Kinetic energy can be passed from one object to another. In the game of billiards, the player imposes kinetic energy on the cue ball by striking it with the cue stick. If the cue ball collides with another ball, it slows down dramatically and the ball it collided with accelerates to a speed as the kinetic energy is passed on to it. Collisions in billiards are effectively elastic collisions, in which kinetic energy is preserved. In inelastic collisions, kinetic energy is dissipated in various forms of energy, such as heat, and sound
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

Content from External Source

Confirms the steels were hot enough to flame once they had sufficient oxygen from the normal surrounding air to flame.

False. Iron doesn't "flame" in air, unless it is finely-divided, like steel wool, or a sparkler. Hydrogen does.

Energy occurs in many forms

Thankyou.

Thermal energy is kinetic energy

Thankyou.

Perhaps you could

Perhaps I have.

Oxymoron · May 21, 2013

So we are agreed there were no fires and very limited low temperature smouldering? Lets try to focus down on some points.

Jazzy said:
We are talking about the virtually lossless kinetic energy transfer

Please define what you mean by "lossless kinetic energy transfer" and provide an example.

of an impacting body into impacted wreckage which is predominantly composed of steel.

Should read: 'of impacting bodies into impacted wreckage which is composed of, (among tons of other material) steel and concrete and the ground itself... all of which absorb energy.

Of course, some kinetic energy dissipated as steel hit the wreckage/rubble by friction.

Should read: 'Of course, the vast majority of kinetic energy dissipated as steel hit the wreckage/rubble by the usual methods observed when other high rise buildings collapse... work in the form of transfer of energy by the ground (as in Planet Earth) and in smashing concrete and bending steel, (binding energy (breaking bound structures).

But every clean hit of steel on steel would send that remaining kinetic energy directly at the base, by CONTACT and IMPACT.

What 'base'... you keep referring to 'the base' and it could mean anything. How large is this base according to your theory... all of the debris field?...half?, a quarter, 1/100th , please define it.

Friction translated directional kinetic energy into molecular vibrational kinetic energy, known as THERMAL ENERGY.

AKA Heat but how much heat and divided amongst what... and how do you arrive at this conclusion?

The pile warmed up without heat concentration at the base as the steel passed through it.

Makes no sense... again what base?... Who says steel passed through and if it did, passed through what, (certainly no steel passes through other steel) and how far and what about the energy used in breaking bound structures?

But the remaining kinetic energy in the steel transferred to to the next piece of steel it collided with, and so on, until motion ceased.

As you have previously acknowledged, steel hitting gzero will only be very slightly warmer due to the small amount of thermal energy, (heat), derived from the sum of the whole kinetic energy. A matter of a few degrees that is all. It is proven time and time again each and every time a steel and concrete structure is destroyed by demolition or collapse... the resultant pile of steel and concrete is not very hot.

What thermite?

The thermite that was used to sever the columns, beams and connections... this is also the alternate theory we are discussing.

Heat IS kinetic energy

Once again... heat is kinetic energy but kinetic energy is not necessarily heat...You appear to imply it is. Heat is most often a very small part of kinetic energy... in all other events, a very small byproduct, especially in a collapse situation.

Kinetic energy can be passed from one object to another. In the game of billiards, the player imposes kinetic energy on the cue ball by striking it with the cue stick. If the cue ball collides with another ball, it slows down dramatically and the ball it collided with accelerates to a speed as the kinetic energy is passed on to it. Collisions in billiards are effectively elastic collisions, in which kinetic energy is preserved. In inelastic collisions, kinetic energy is dissipated in various forms of energy, such as heat, and sound
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

Content from External Source

And why leave out 'binding energy (breaking bound structures)', which will undoubtedly be the primary consequence and use of the available kinetic energy in a collapse scenario such as the wtc's.

The heat dissipates by a circuitous route. Conduction to the surface, and radiation and convection thereafter. Steel isn't a very good conductor of heat.

Steel is a pretty good conductor of heat @ roughly 16.3. Concrete is only 0.1 to 1. It is amazing how when you want it to be a bad conductor of heat, (i.e. trying to make out it will not cool or dissipate/radiate heat) you call it a bad conductor and yet when you want to show it will quickly heat up and spread to other steels and cause them to get hot enough to weaken and fail... it is a 'good conductor'. You cannot have it both ways. Steel is a good conductor of heat.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html
Oxy:

An object which was in motion and therefore had kinetic energy, loses it when it comes to rest.

Jazzy

False when it comes to rest by elastic and inelastic impact.

It is still largely true. Obviously small amount energy gets converted to heat but most goes on work... breaking bound structures etc.

[video=youtube_share;fnFQppu0mMg]http://youtu.be/fnFQppu0mMg[/video]
[EX

]In 2008, Oilgear Korea delivered a hydraulic drive and electrical control system to power a 6000T (60MN) Two Column Push Down Open Die Forging Press.
With a moving parts weight (WOP) of over 200 tonnes and a high pressure pipe column of over 28m, Oilgear was able to achieve a performance specification of over 150 strokes per minute with an accuracy variation of less than 1.0mm.[/EX]
I can assure you that you would need insulating gloves to pick up that forging. Better make that tongs.

I was really after a 'real world' example such as another building collapse which resulted in hot spots... but I guess unsurprisingly, you cannot find such an example. Instead you supply a carefully designed machine which you imply is specifically designed to impart heat by transfer of massive forces at high speed to a trapped recipient. However, It appears to be simply a forging press which presses and moulds already hot steel. Interestingly with such presses, the steel needs re heating periodically to continue as the steel cools quickly. So I do not see this as even a mildly similar example to your theory.

Are you seriously suggesting that each wtc steel was hit at 150 strokes per minute by a force of 6000T (60MN) tonnes each time?

You appear to have totally disregarded the facts. 1) the objects/debris were all falling in the same direction so impact in motion would not increase kinetic energy but would simply result in transfer as in the billiard ball example, (i.e a small increase in one, offset by a small decrease in the other. (like a billiard ball hitting another billiard ball which is already traveling in a similar direction)(another example would be a blow to a boxer who is moving away from the blow would have little effect whilst the same blow to a boxer who walked into the blow would likely be catastrophic) 2 Debris which hit the ground first would expend vast amounts of energy going into the ground and then be covered by other debris, which would then largely protect it from further impact, much like a crumple zone.

Another omission, when calculating the total Gravitational Potential Energy is that you appear to have taken the sum weight of the structure and assigned it ALL to over 1000 ft but only a small amount was at that height and therefore contained that PE. As the height reduced, so did the PE... thus reducing the available PE by a considerable magnitude.

Oxymoron · May 21, 2013

SR1419 said:
If you read more closely you will see that they were studying the aerosols that were released from the burning debris piles at GZ..

Studying the pollutants released by combustion from the fires should give some insight as to what was being burned-

I do not believe they found any residual thermite in their samplings- nor do I know that they would were it to even be present.

If you scroll to the bottom of the article you will find a link to the actual presentation whence these slides came- including their analysis of the fires themselves:

Did you arrive at any conclusions helpful to the thread?

SR1419 · May 21, 2013

Oxymoron said:
Did you arrive at any conclusions helpful to the thread?

yes, there was no reported thermite residue found in the aerosols released from the burning debris piles.

Grieves · May 21, 2013

But every clean hit of steel on steel would send that remaining kinetic energy directly at the base, by CONTACT and IMPACT.

I'm no physics buff, but wouldn't every clean hit of steel on steel send the kinetic energy back up from the base, pushing back against the impacting object? The ball swings back, no? Why would all this kinetic energy be expected to concentrate in a downward direction?

When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that of the first body.

Jazzy · May 21, 2013

Oxymoron said:
Please define what you mean by "lossless kinetic energy transfer" and provide an example.

Kinetic energy can be passed from one object to another. In the game of billiards, the player imposes kinetic energy on the cue ball by striking it with the cue stick. If the cue ball collides with another ball, it slows down dramatically and the ball it collided with accelerates to a speed as the kinetic energy is passed on to it. Collisions in billiards are effectively elastic collisions, in which kinetic energy is preserved. In inelastic collisions, kinetic energy is dissipated in various forms of energy, such as heat, sound
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

Content from External Source

[video=youtube_share;OuA-znVMY3I]http://youtu.be/OuA-znVMY3I[/video]

This one is pretty lossy. Those balls are inelastic.

Should read

As it does.

Should read

As it does. "Binding energy (breaking bound structures)" which you so dutifully copied, refers to nuclear binding energy. This has no relevance.

What 'base'

The base of the pile. That will be the raft over which the basement stands, which extends many yards outwards. The site floats on estuarial mud. The steel will push all else aside with transferred KE from above..

AKA Heat but how much heat and divided amongst what... and how do you arrive at this conclusion?

Kinetic energy can be passed from one object to another. In the game of billiards, the player imposes kinetic energy on the cue ball by striking it with the cue stick. If the cue ball collides with another ball, it slows down dramatically and the ball it collided with accelerates to a speed as the kinetic energy is passed on to it. Collisions in billiards are effectively elastic collisions, in which kinetic energy is preserved. In inelastic collisions, kinetic energy is dissipated in various forms of energy, such as heat, sound
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

Content from External Source

Makes no sense. Who says steel passed through and if it did, passed through what, (certainly no steel passes through other steel) and how far and what about the energy used in breaking bound structures?

Ha.

If the steel didn't hit steel as it hit the wreckage, then it passed through it. The DENSITY of steel is THREE TIMES that of concrete rubble and FIVE TIMES that of wallboarding. When it hit steel it transferred its energy in a downward direction. Forget nuclear physics.

As you have previously acknowledged, steel hitting gzero will only be very slightly warmer due to the small amount of thermal energy

The small amount of kinetic energy.

derived from the sum

NOT derived from the sum of anything.

A matter of a few degrees that is all.

When it falls ALONE.

NOT when it is wedged down against the base, and receiving KE from ABOVE.

It is proven time and time again each and every time

That you are quite unable to comprehend this topic.

The thermite that was used to sever the columns, beams and connections... this is also the alternate theory we are discussing.

We? There is no evidence.

Nor is there evidence, by the way, that the WTC buildings were used as secret coal stockpiles. So let's assume they were.

Once again... heat is kinetic energy but kinetic energy is not necessarily heat.

False. kinetic energy is heat, and you have admitted it in a previous post. There are techniques available to improve one's memory.

Kinetic energy can be passed from one object to another. In the game of billiards, the player imposes kinetic energy on the cue ball by striking it with the cue stick. If the cue ball collides with another ball, it slows down dramatically and the ball it collided with accelerates to a speed as the kinetic energy is passed on to it. Collisions in billiards are effectively elastic collisions, in which kinetic energy is preserved. In inelastic collisions, kinetic energy is dissipated in various forms of energy, such as heat, and sound
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

Content from External Source

And why leave out 'binding energy (breaking bound structures)', which will undoubtedly be the primary consequence and use of the available kinetic energy in a collapse scenario such as the wtc's.

When nucleons bind together to form a nucleus, they must lose a small amount of mass, i.e., there is mass change, in order to stay bound. This mass change must be released as various types of photon or other particle energy as above, according to the relation E = mc2. Thus, after binding energy has been removed, binding energy = mass change × c2. This energy is a measure of the forces that hold the nucleons together, and it represents energy which must be supplied again from the environment, if the nucleus were to be broken up into individual nucleons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy

Content from External Source

I told you to forget nuclear physics.

Steel is a pretty good conductor of heat

Aluminum, copper and silver, most metals are better conductors.

It is amazing how when you want it to be a bad conductor of heat

I'd get the clown out. But you've already flagged yourself as one.

when you want to show it will quickly heat up and spread to other steels and cause them to get hot enough to weaken and fail

False. And derogatory. And a straw man. Are you even talking about KE? Are you talking about the fire-induced collapse? Because the conduction of heat there was direct conduction between the fire and the surface of the steel.

it is a 'good conductor'.

And that poor thermal conductor ended up lying flat.

A horizontal sandwich of "conductors" in an insulating medium, has the insulation properties of the insulant. That should be obvious to you.

It is still largely true. Obviously small amount energy gets converted to heat but most goes on work... breaking bound structures etc.

Ooo.

Heat IS kinetic energy in an impact-adjusted form. While falling the steel's KE is coherent. When brought to rest by inelastic impact the steel's KE becomes incoherent, manifested as an average amplitude increase of its molecular vibration.

Kinetic energy can be passed from one object to another. In the game of billiards, the player imposes kinetic energy on the cue ball by striking it with the cue stick. If the cue ball collides with another ball, it slows down dramatically and the ball it collided with accelerates to a speed as the kinetic energy is passed on to it. Collisions in billiards are effectively elastic collisions, in which kinetic energy is preserved. In inelastic collisions, kinetic energy is dissipated in various forms of energy, such as heat, and sound
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

Content from External Source

Essentially, the downward translation of KE to the base of the pile occurred by elastic collision. The collision of the pile base with ground zero occurred by inelastic collision, and resulted in HEAT.

I'd like to break your "bound structure". Metaphorically, of course.

I was really after a 'real world' example such as another building collapse which resulted in hot spots... but I guess unsurprisingly

Unsurprisingly indeed, you guessed late, and impolitely.

Are you seriously suggesting that each wtc steel was hit at 150 strokes per minute by a force of 6000T (60MN) tonnes each time?

It took about thirteen seconds for half a million tons of tower to collapse.

Let's say fifteen. A hundred and ten impacts of 4,550 tons traveling at 120 mph in fifteen seconds at a rate of 440 strokes per minute. Mostly transferred to the base by impact.

It is very similar. Smaller, admittedly, with a tiny stroke length of millimeters, whereas the tower exhibited a multiplicity of stroke weights and lengths. Still similar.

You appear to have totally disregarded the facts

Mirror. What is binding energy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy

a billiard ball hitting another billiard ball which is already traveling in a similar direction

A pair of WTC steels entering rubble with steel in it won't do that for long before the base (or a solid steel pancake) brings them both to a halt. They will then transfer their kinetic energy downward through the pancake until the base reacts it. Inelastic collision will take place.

Debris which hit the ground first would expend vast amounts of energy going into the ground and then be covered by other debris, which would then largely protect it from further impact, much like a crumple zone.

Crumple zones are made of steel (and sometimes foam). They do indeed absorb energy by inelastic collision. Have you noticed that the crumple zone doesn't absorb all the impact? Cars crashing into concrete walls at 120 mph end up looking in very poor condition. They end up smoking and steaming. Hot. Having suffered an inelastic collision.

The bulk properties of steel falling into rubble result from the different densities, toughness and hardness of the two media. Steel penetrates rubble because it is three times denser, carrying more momentum, harder and tougher, and better able to withstand the reaction forces resulting from impact. If it has fallen six hundred feet it will be traveling at around two hundred feet per second. If it does strike it in a horizontal position it will still go deep into material three times lighter and weaker. In a vertical position it will easily penetrate the rubble and t-bone any steel it meets.

Another omission

I used a point mass half-way up, kiddo. 0.5*m*g*h. It happens to roughly coincide with FEMA's figure. How about that?

Now deal with your very many real omissions. What is binding energy, once again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy

Oxymoron · May 21, 2013

Jazzy said:
Kinetic energy can be passed from one object to another. In the game of billiards, ...
[video=youtube_share;OuA-znVMY3I]http://youtu.be/OuA-znVMY3I[/video]

This one is pretty lossy. Those balls are inelastic.

Content from External Source

Lol... yep they are pretty lossy. Fairplay to you for posting it though... even though it debunks your lossless energy transfer theory. I intended posting it later:)

So, in the macroscale, can you actually give an example of the 'lossless kinetic energy' you keep referring to? Particularly in a collapse/demolition scenario.

Also, I do not see the word 'lossless' even in the cueball analogy. Naturally there would be far more loss when using long steels and concrete etc.

"Binding energy (breaking bound structures)" which you so dutifully copied, refers to nuclear binding energy. This has no relevance.

Click to expand...

Thought you missed it in the cut and paste....:) but no it does not mean nuclear and yes it is not only entirely relevant, it is crucial.

In general, binding energy represents the mechanical work which must be done against the forces which hold an object together, disassembling the object into component parts separated by sufficient distance that further separation requires negligible additional work.

Content from External Source

I will spell it out in simple terms for clarity and disambiguation: It is the work expended in breaking an object into pieces. It may be into two pieces or it may be into a billion pieces. The smaller it is broken, the more work is involved. I trust you will concede this is correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_work

In physics, a force is said to do work when it acts on a body so that there is a displacement of the point of application, however small, in the direction of the force. Thus a force does work when it results in movement.[1]

The term work was introduced in 1826 by the French mathematician Gaspard-Gustave Coriolis[2][3]

Content from External Source

Only once you are breaking up atoms can it be applied at the atomic level. Please note this is known as Atomic Binding Energy and is distinct from binding energy which is the energy which enables the particles above an atomic level to bind. i.e in lay terms: Atomic Binding Energy is the eponymous title for the energy it takes to break apart atoms. Also note it is in bold in it's original quote below. If you keep making up your own definitions and theories, I will have no alternative but to keep correcting you. Sorry about that.

At the atomic level the atomic binding energy of the atom derives from electromagnetic interaction and is the energy required to disassemble an atom into free electrons and a nucleus

Content from External Source

The base of the pile. That will be the raft over which the basement stands, which extends many yards outwards. The site floats on estuarial mud. The steel will push all else aside with transferred KE from above..

Click to expand...

So are you saying all of the area of gzero, contained within the Bathtub?

Oxy

AKA Heat but how much heat and divided amongst what... and how do you arrive at this conclusion?

Click to expand...

The explanation below seems extremely cryptic and totally irrelevant. Is that really the best explanation you can come up with. BTW The quote is overworn as are the Newton's Cradle vids... apart from the last one that is.

Kinetic energy can be passed from one object to another. In the game of billiards, the player imposes kinetic energy on the cue ball by striking it with the cue stick. If the cue ball collides with another ball, it slows down dramatically and the ball it collided with accelerates to a speed as the kinetic energy is passed on to it. Collisions in billiards are effectively elastic collisions, in which kinetic energy is preserved. In inelastic collisions, kinetic energy is dissipated in various forms of energy, such as heat, sound
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

Content from External Source

If the steel didn't hit steel as it hit the wreckage, then it passed through it. The DENSITY of steel is THREE TIMES that of concrete rubble and FIVE TIMES that of wallboarding. When it hit steel it transferred its energy in a downward direction. Forget nuclear physics.

Click to expand...

Exactly, and in passing through the lower density material... kinetic energy is expended in breaking the binding energy of the less dense material. This is a huge energy sink.

So you agree that a steel, (even a massive steel of many tons), falling from (say 500 ft (mid point)), will only have it's temperature raised by a few degrees at most. Excellent.

NOT when it is wedged down against the base, and receiving KE from ABOVE.

Click to expand...

But that can only raise the temp slightly more as the steel falling upon it will retain say 50% and anything falling on that will be highly diffused by the crumple zone effect.

In a collision, slowing down the deceleration of the human body by even a few tenths of a second drastically reduces the force involved. Force is a simple equation: Force = mass X acceleration. Cutting the deceleration in half also cuts the force in half. Therefore, changing the deceleration time from .2 seconds to .8 seconds will result in a 75 percent reduction in total force.[1

Content from External Source

Oxy on no fires after every other collapse/demolition

It is proven time and time again each and every time

Click to expand...

Jazzy

That you are quite unable to comprehend this topic.

Click to expand...

Now now Jazzy, try to control yourself.

Oxy

The thermite that was used to sever the columns, beams and connections... this is also the alternate theory we are discussing.

Click to expand...

Jazzy

We? There is no evidence.

Click to expand...

There is plenty but we will leave that for the moment other than to say there are plenty of intelligent scientifsts who subscribe to the theory. Your theory however, which we are currently discussing... is your theory and is promulgated by only you, has no evidence to back it up. It is a theory completely of your own creation, which is not recognised by any scientists whatsoever.

False. kinetic energy is heat, and you have admitted it in a previous post. There are techniques available to improve one's memory.

Click to expand...

I agreed it was in the previous post as well. That is not the point. The point is you are using it misleadingly because heat is only one form by which kinetic energy can manifest.... there are many others and the first and foremost is in breaking binding energy. But I expect you have got that by now and will not need me to explain it again.

Aluminum, copper and silver, most metals are better conductors.

Click to expand...

So what... there are many better conductors than those... it's all relative.

I'd get the clown out. But you've already flagged yourself as one.

Click to expand...

You simply show yourself up and undermine any legitimacy you may have had. Insults are a sure sign that you have lost the argument and you know it.

False. And derogatory. And a straw man. Are you even talking about KE? Are you talking about the fire-induced collapse? Because the conduction of heat there was direct conduction between the fire and the surface of the steel.

Click to expand...

See above... Also if you cannot understand such a simple premise as

heat is kinetic energy but kinetic energy is not necessarily heat

Click to expand...

. then it must reflect on your cognizant ability as it is self explanatory and has been copy pasted enough times that you should by now have understood.

Content from External Source

Jazzy · May 21, 2013

Grieves said:
I'm no physics buff, but wouldn't every clean hit of steel on steel send the kinetic energy back up from the base, pushing back against the impacting object? The ball swings back, no? Why would all this kinetic energy be expected to concentrate in a downward direction?

Consider the single striking ball scenario. It comes to a dead stop. The ball at the far end takes up the motion. The kinetic energy of the first ball is obviously in the last.

[video=youtube_share;d0HZ9N9yvcU]http://youtu.be/d0HZ9N9yvcU[/video]

Well, the formation of the pile is a one-way event.

The steel hands on the kinetic energy down the compacted steel to the base, which is very nearly a dead stop. (It does actually deflect somewhat, otherwise there wouldn't have been a seismic signal).

As the KE has been additive, by the time it gets to the base it is a seriously large amount, and the collision will be mostly inelastic as the steel deforms. There will be a fractional elastic rebound, of course, but that will merely serve to heat the pile above the base somewhat.

[video=youtube_share;dEezpMwifqs]http://youtu.be/dEezpMwifqs[/video]

The actual event was, I'm sure, nearly as varied as the weather, with all types of steel and rubble events with a whole range of magnitudes. Which is why I said (I hope) that there would be a strong tendency for the KE to migrate to the base and a strong tendency for it to develop a hot spot there.

Given the availability of 110,000 kWh of potential energy, itself the equivalent of raising 1,200 tons of steel to its melting point, I suggested that at least 10% of that energy, the equivalent of 120 tons of yellow-hot steel, could be found in places at the base of the pile, the rest (90%) having been converted to crushing, shearing, snapping, and deforming.

The loss-free transmission of KE must have occurred, or no steel would have hit any other. Its direction was always downwards. Its destination was the base. It was the densest material there, and held the bulk of the kinetic energy.

The energy did not have to be applied from the outside. It was integral in the steel. The final inelastic impact with the base merely changed the mode of the kinetic energy from coherent (all molecules traveling in one direction while vibrating in random directions) to incoherent (all molecules deformed but stationary and vibrating about their mean points in random directions with an increased amplitude). HOTTER.

A final thought. A piece of logic. You have just seen what looked to me like a man with relevant experience remark on the intensities of the energies involved.

We have discussed how a single piece of steel impacting ground zero could only raise its temp by a degree or two, and maybe take on a slight bend or kink.

So we KNOW that some other process must have been at work, and I have repeatedly told Oxymoron what it was. It was the right combination of additive forces to pretzelize steelwork fragments.

But how exactly would thermite do that? Thermite flounces in at a thousand degrees celsius hotter than steel's melting point, and would quite literally pour through solid steel.

But steel pretzels it cannot do.

Jazzy · May 21, 2013

Oxymoron said:
I do not see the word 'lossless' even in the cueball analogy.

Kinetic energy can be passed from one object to another. In the game of billiards, the player imposes kinetic energy on the cue ball by striking it with the cue stick. If the cue ball collides with another ball, it slows down dramatically and the ball it collided with accelerates to a speed as the kinetic energy is passed on to it. Collisions in billiards are effectively elastic collisions, in which kinetic energy is preserved. In inelastic collisions, kinetic energy is dissipated in various forms of energy, such as heat, sound
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

Content from External Source

it is crucial

It is without significance.

must be done against the forces which hold an object together

Bolts and welds? Don't waste my time. We have covered work done.

required to disassemble an atom into free electrons and a nucleus

Yawn.

So are you saying all of the area of gzero, contained within the Bathtub?

Ditto.

The explanation below seems extremely cryptic and totally irrelevant. Is that really the best explanation you

Not me. The world of science offers it to you.

Kinetic energy can be passed from one object to another. In the game of billiards, the player imposes kinetic energy on the cue ball by striking it with the cue stick. If the cue ball collides with another ball, it slows down dramatically and the ball it collided with accelerates to a speed as the kinetic energy is passed on to it. Collisions in billiards are effectively elastic collisions, in which kinetic energy is preserved. In inelastic collisions, kinetic energy is dissipated in various forms of energy, such as heat, sound
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

Content from External Source

in passing through the lower density material

SOME

Kinetic energy is expended

[...]

Your theory is not recognised by any scientists whatsoever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

[...]

breaking binding energy.

The bolts and welds in the WTC buildings were designed to hold together stationary intact structures. They became as nothing during the collapse. So they weren't there for the impact.

[...]

heat is kinetic energy but kinetic energy is not necessarily heat

It becomes heat in an inelastic collision. In an elastic collision it transfers to the object it collides with. The final collision in this instance must be inelastic, and must necessarily become heat - save for mechanical work done.

Heat IS the kinetic energy of molecular vibration in a solid material. A gain in heat manifests as an increase in the amplitude of molecular vibration in the solid material. It's why raising the temperature causes expansion.

myself and the rest of the world said:
Energy occurs in many forms, including chemical energy, thermal energy, electromagnetic radiation, gravitational energy, electric energy, elastic energy, nuclear energy, and rest energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

[...]
Go bend a paperclip. Repeatedly.

Grieves · May 22, 2013

Go bend a paperclip. Repeatedly.

It broke! 8O~

The loss-free transmission of KE must have occurred, or no steel would have hit any other. Its direction was always downwards.

Why always downward?

Its destination was the base. It was the densest material there, and held the bulk of the kinetic energy.

I think Oxy makes a decent point here, what are you referring too when you say 'the base'? There's not a big ball-bearing beneath each tower... falling debris was scattered over wide piles. Again, I'm no physics buff, but through what mechanism is the potential energy of a thousand-thousand separate and fleeting kinetic events being concentrated into such intense heat? Landslides don't cause forest fires, do they?

Jazzy · May 22, 2013

Grieves said:
It broke!

But sizzled your fingers?

Why always downward?

Because that is the direction of the gravitationally-attractive center of mass.

I think Oxy makes a decent point here

He never makes one without an agenda. If you take an agenda to science you waste all time.

what are you referring too when you say 'the base'?

Read the thread. I've just defined it.

There's not a big ball-bearing beneath each tower

That really is the point. Had there been one, it would have joined in the fun. It doesn't really matter what size it was, it would still transfer the kinetic energy to the base. More efficiently.

falling debris was scattered over wide piles.

They weren't piled on earth, you know. They were deep too - up to fifty feet deep. Falling steel brushes aside earth and concrete rubble after falling a quarter of a mile and will come to rest on the raft, or on steel.

Again, I'm no physics buff, but through what mechanism is the potential energy of a thousand-thousand separate and fleeting kinetic events being concentrated into such intense heat?

Those events had not a bit of potential energy. They had converted it all to kinetic energy by falling.

Kinetic energy can be transmitted by impact.

[video=youtube_share;0LnbyjOyEQ8]http://youtu.be/0LnbyjOyEQ8[/video]

Here is an example of steel being brought to a stop in an inelastic impact. Not the same quantity, but the principle is just the same. You aren't looking at friction here. It is being sheared, and its motion stopped.

Landslides don't cause forest fires, do they?

Rock is three times less dense, and cannot collide elastically; it is unable to transfer its kinetic energy to the rock it collides with. A steel landslide might if it fell into a forest growing above a concrete foundation.

Oxymoron · May 22, 2013

Originally Posted by Oxymoron

I do not see the word 'lossless' even in the cueball analogy.

Jazzy said:
Kinetic energy can be passed from one object to another. In the game of billiards, the player imposes kinetic energy on the cue ball by striking it with the cue stick. If the cue ball collides with another ball, it slows down dramatically and the ball it collided with accelerates to a speed as the kinetic energy is passed on to it. Collisions in billiards are effectively elastic collisions, in which kinetic energy is preserved. In inelastic collisions, kinetic energy is dissipated in various forms of energy, such as heat, sound
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

Content from External Source

Strange that... I expect I didn't make the connection because they are spelled differently and have different meanings.

So you suggest an unimpeded cue ball struck with the same force and in the same place as an impeded cue ball will result in the 'struck ball' travelling exactly the same distance as the unimpeded cue ball. I would love to see it. Do you have a video of this phenomena?

Even better if you have a video of several balls being struck (cannoned) and the last ball travelling the same distance as the unimpeded cue ball. Now that would be lossless transfer of energy. Shame for you that it doesn't exist.

Lossless energy... This is not it obviously. This refers to a trade off between compression and sending data.

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1151692

If the energy required to compress data is less than the energy required to send it, there is a net energy savings and an increase in battery life for portable computers.

Content from External Source

What about this we'll search 'mechanical lossless energy'

The term ideal machine refers to a hypothetical mechanical system in which energy and power are not lost or dissipated

Content from External Source

It is without significance

.

So 'General Binding', (work expended in breaking an object into pieces), according to you, 'without significance' All that pulverised concrete and furnishings and buckled columns, massive twisted/sheered steels etc etc... the energy required to do that is 'insignificant'... If that's what you believe, you are really out on your own.

Bolts and welds? Don't waste my time. We have covered work done.

See above and think about it.

Oxy

At the atomic level the atomic binding energy of the atom derives from electromagnetic interaction and is the energy required to disassemble an atom into free electrons and a nucleus

And your response is:

Yawn.

Mick West · May 22, 2013

Please stick to the science gents. Leave off personal commentary on each other's perceived failings.

The first video game I wrote was a Snooker/Pool simulator, so I'm very familiar with the physics of collisions. Collision between pool balls are NOT elastic. Nothing in the universe is perfectly elastic, just like nothing is incompressible. They are, as Wikipedia puts it "effectively" elastic, meaning they have a coefficient of restitution that is close to 1, typically up to 0.98 for ball-ball collisions (meaning they lose 2% of their energy per collision)

I don't actually think there's much to this theory of the kinetic energy creating the hot-spots. Underground fires seem like a much more plausible explanation. The KE would be largely dissipated into displacing rubble, and pushing against the bedrock (creating a seismic event).

It all seems rather irrelevant to the conspiracy theory, either way. There is at least one plausible explanation for the hot spots. So no need to add the new entity of nano-thermite to explain them.

Oxymoron · May 22, 2013

Mick said:
Please stick to the science gents. Leave off personal commentary on each other's perceived failings.

So what message is being sent when the fact that Jazzy is posting very rude personal comments without provocation and without deletion, (apart from in the most extreme cases), is attested to in the posts? Whilst my witty and mild little responses are deleted.

The first video game I wrote was a Snooker/Pool simulator, so I'm very familiar with the physics of collisions. Collision between pool balls are NOT elastic. Nothing in the universe is perfectly elastic, just like nothing is incompressible. They are, as Wikipedia puts it "effectively" elastic, meaning they have a coefficient of restitution that is close to 1, typically up to 0.98 for ball-ball collisions (meaning they lose 2% of their energy per collision)
I don't actually think there's much to this theory of the kinetic energy creating the hot-spots. The KE would be largely dissipated into displacing rubble, and pushing against the bedrock (creating a seismic event).

You and me both... hope you don't get the same abuse I did for saying so.

Underground fires seem like a much more plausible explanation.

Everyone agrees they were low temperature, smouldering fires, (issuing toxic gasses) but that is about all. They were not a major heat source.

Grieves · May 22, 2013

Underground fires seem like a much more plausible explanation.

How did fires survive the collapse? (sharp, blunt impacts and suffocating clouds of debris are not conducive to fires.) Where did they get the oxygen to maintain themselves for such a prolonged period in what had to have been a claustrophobic environment? Why did it take weeks of effort once water-flow was restored to quench them? Has any other structural fire of any sort of building ever exhibited such a prolonged burn as was present beneath the three WTC towers?

It all seems rather irrelevant to the conspiracy theory, either way. There is at least one plausible explanation for the hot spots.

Possible and plausible aren't the same thing. It's possible that fires survived the collapse, and in spite of all the thickly condensed rubble somehow found access to air, fuel, and space enough to form a furnace-like environ hot and protected enough to burn for weeks in spite of the efforts of fire fighters, and that this somehow occurred in roughly the same way in all three towers, in spite of the differences in time-of-burn, size and structure... an unprecedented phenomenon occurring coincidentally three times in a row on the same day. To call it plausible seems rather overzealous. I think even Jazzy might agree with me on this one.

Mick West · May 22, 2013

Grieves said:
How did fires survive the collapse? (sharp, blunt impacts and suffocating clouds of debris are not conducive to fires.) Where did they get the oxygen to maintain themselves for such a prolonged period in what had to have been a claustrophobic environment? Why did it take weeks of effort once water-flow was restored to quench them? Has any other structural fire of any sort of building ever exhibited such a prolonged burn as was present beneath the three WTC towers?

Possible and plausible aren't the same thing. It's possible that fires survived the collapse, and in spite of all the thickly condensed rubble somehow found access to air, fuel, and space enough to form a furnace-like environ hot and protected enough to burn for weeks in spite of the efforts of fire fighters, and that this somehow occurred in roughly the same way in all three towers, in spite of the differences in time-of-burn, size and structure... an unprecedented phenomenon occurring coincidentally three times in a row on the same day. To call it plausible seems rather overzealous. I think even Jazzy might agree with me on this one.

A 110 story burning building collapsing into a large heap of rubble is an unprecedented phenomenon, so it follows that it might results in other things that are unprecedented.

There was a vast amount of combustible material in the towers. The initial fires were not exactly flickering candle flames - is it really that implausible that some burning material made its way into the pile? Or that some small objects were ignited by the energy of the impact and crushing. How much does it take to start a fire? And obviously there would be some open areas within the pile of rubble.

Mick West · May 22, 2013

And a fire being under a heap of rubble is no impediment to it burning for a long time. Lots of fires burn underground for years. "Underground" is not air tight.

https://www.google.com/search?q=underground+fire+burned+for+years

Grieves · May 22, 2013

And a fire being under a heap of rubble is no impediment to it burning for a long time.

I think, in testing, you'd find the opposite to be true.

Lots of fires burn underground for years. "Underground" is not air tight.

https://www.google.com/search?q=unde...rned+for+years

But fire needs oxygen to burn. So what keeps underground fires burning for decades? Once a portion of the coal has burned, it turns to ash. Since the ash can't support the weight of rock layers above, the layers buckle, creating cracks and crevices where oxygen can get through and rejuvenate the fire. Underground fires are also sustained by mineshafts, which provide a steady stream of oxygen to the inferno.

I don't think the WTC was built on a coal seam. The rubble plies might not have been air-tight throughout, but they would have obviously been extremely condensed, crushed concrete being ideally suited to fill out the spaces between more solid pieces of rubble. That clean-up crews, upon shifting/moving rubble, would experience blow-torch like gouts of heat and pressurized gasses suggests many of the very hot areas beneath the WTC were indeed cut off from the air oxygen starved.

Mick West · May 22, 2013

Grieves said:
I think, in testing, you'd find the opposite to be true.

I badly phrased that. I meant it's not an absolute impediment, like say, being under water. Of course it impedes it quite a bit, otherwise it would have burned out in a day or two.

I don't think the WTC was built on a coal seam.

Nor did it it burn for years. But there was a lot of flammable material in the WTC.

Grieves · May 22, 2013

The initial fires were not exactly flickering candle flames - is it really that implausible that some burning material made its way into the pile?

Its implausible to me that a fire could survive the crushing collapse of the WTC buildings, especially that of the twin towers, yes. I cannot imagine how any burning material on the floors affected by fire in the towers could have stayed burning throughout the fall to ground-level. If no flaming rubble survived on the surface of the piles, where flames would be in the absolute best position to survive, then I find it highly unlikely flaming rubble survived at the bottom of the piles... especially three times in a row and to such an extent. To suggest that's how it happened also implies these fires built themselves up in the wake of the collapse which later resulted in hotspots, as opposed to the hotspots being a side-effect/direct result of the collapses themselves, for whatever reason... meaning each fire would have had to have spread from a relatively unique source in a relatively unique way in order to form basically the same result on three separate occasions. I have a fair deal of difficulty in buying Jazzy's 'friction-induced hotspots' theory, but I actually find it more believable than surviving fires within the rubble-piles. The 'friction' theory can at least somewhat better account for why the hotspots would form 3 for 3. To suggest each was caused by random fire-spread beneath dense rubble-piles is a little boggling to me.

SR1419 · May 22, 2013

Grieves said:
Its implausible to me that a fire could survive the crushing collapse of the WTC buildings

People survived the collapse of the Towers...why not burning material?

Maybe two hours later, he regained consciousness on a slab of concrete 180 feet below the 22nd floor. (He may be the source of the rumor that someone surfed the collapse and lived.) He was atop a hill of rubble in the midst of an endless field of rubble, smoke, and fire, sitting as if in an armchair, his feet dangling over the edge. His bag was gone. He felt numb. The air was thick with smoke and dust. He heard explosions.

Content from External Source

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/2003/n_9189/

Burning material didn't have to be "flames" to survive and continue to combust.

Underground fires have a way of burning for a long time:

http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto.../no-way-to-put-out-underground-peat-fire.html

http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/Crews-expect-to-extinguish-Concord-fire-Thursday-night-111215084.html

Officials believe spontaneous combustion may have caused the fire. The debris pile was roughly 50-feet deep.

Officials say it could have been burning for days, even weeks, before the smoldering reached the top, and the oxygen.

Content from External Source

Mick West · May 22, 2013

Consider a large piece of burning wood that has been burning for half an hour. It's a coal. It will burn more as it falls wit increased oxygen. Then it end up in a cavity with air and combustibles.

Grieves · May 22, 2013

Consider a large piece of burning wood that has been burning for half an hour. It's a coal.

Drop a phone-book, a shovel-full of dirt/gravel, or even a large bag of other coals onto such a burning coal. Does it keep burning?

Burning material didn't have to be "flames" to survive and continue to combust.

True, the hotspots would be entirely impossible in every sense otherwise. Flame however is the mechanism through which conventional fires spread rapidly. Can a gradually building smoulder account for the hotspots at the temperature and in the time-frame that they were found?

lee h oswald · May 22, 2013

Grieves said:
Drop a phone-book, a shovel-full of dirt/gravel, or even a large bag of other coals onto such a burning coal. Does it keep burning?

True, the hotspots would be entirely impossible in every sense otherwise. Flame however is the mechanism through which conventional fires spread rapidly. Can a gradually building smoulder account for the hotspots at the temperature and in the time-frame that they were found?

Dissipation is the result of irreversible processes that take place in inhomogeneous thermodynamic systems. A dissipative process is a process in which energy (internal, bulk flow kinetic, or system potential) is transformed from some initial form to some final form; the capacity of the final form to do mechanical work is less than that of the initial form. For example, transfer of energy as heat is dissipative because it is a transfer of internal energy from a hotter body to a colder one. The second law of thermodynamics implies that this reduces the capacity of the combination of the two bodies to do mechanical work.

Thermodynamic dissipative processes are essentially irreversible. They produce entropy at a finite rate. In a process in which the temperature is locally continuously defined, the local density of rate of entropy production times local temperature gives the local density of dissipated power.
Important examples of irreversible processes are:

Heat flow through a thermal resistance

Fluid flow through a flow resistance

Diffusion (mixing)

Chemical reactions

Electrical current flow through an electrical resistance (Joule heating).

The concept of dissipation was introduced in the field of thermodynamics by William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) in 1852.[1]

Content from External Source

Where's Jazzy?

Cairenn · May 22, 2013

Do you remember the firepit that was covered with soil and allowed to sit for a week?

When one does Raku pottery firing, the pots with special glazes are pulled out of the kiln when they are glowing red hot. Then they are placed into a metal container with newspapers or straw or leaves, some organic combustible material (sometimes used motor oil is dripped on the organic material also). As soon as the pot hits it, the material starts flaming up, then you put a tight fitting lid on it. You may even line it with wet newspaper to make it more airtight. Then you go sit down for 15 or 30 min. You turn on the water hose, because as soon as you open the container, the fire will restart. The fire was starved of oxygen, so it restarts when oxygen reaches it.

I happen to like playing with and creating with fire.

Oxymoron · May 23, 2013

Jazzy said:
[...]

Go bend a paperclip. Repeatedly.

Content from External Source

So just to clarify... These remaining comments, (just from the latest post, already edited for politeness), are not 'A bit impolite'?

Content from External Source

Mick West · May 23, 2013

Oxymoron said:
So just to clarify... These remaining comments, (just from the latest post, already edited for politeness), are not 'A bit impolite'?

Indeed, more than a bit. I'd missed removing some as there was a lot of editing needed. Jazzy got a "very impolite" infraction which auto-banned him for a day (infractions are cumulative).

Reset.

The bending a paperclip repeatedly comment is an experiment that should demonstrate that metal things get hot when you bend them. This should have been clarified.

A better demonstation would be to rapidly bend in one movement a 1/4" steel rod (you can get them at Home Depot for $5, clamp one end, pull the other. 1/8" wold be cheaper and easier), and then measure the temperature at the bend.

Mick West · May 23, 2013

After reviewing Jazzy's post again, I have extended his ban to one week.

Oxymoron · May 23, 2013

SR1419 said:
People survived the collapse of the Towers...why not burning material?

Good point but sadly, they were very much the exception, (some say miraculous) and it is recognised that they only survived because they were low down, (arbitrarily 22nd to 18thth floors) and they were in a stairwell which had undergone massive reinforcement following the 1993 bombing. Even so they were very lucky to survive.

As far as the fires, I am sure some minor fires survived but the vast majority was undoubtedly snuffed out like a candle by the millions of tons of dust.

Burning material didn't have to be "flames" to survive and continue to combust.

That has been recognised and is undisputed. But it is also scientific fact that smouldering, (oxygen starved) burning, (slow oxidation as opposed to fast oxidation in the case of fire), generates only relatively low temperatures.

Underground fires have a way of burning for a long time:
http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto.../no-way-to-put-out-underground-peat-fire.html

Again, see above and I suggest comparing an underground peat, coal; smouldering fire is not comparable. I think apart from the vastness of the fuel source and oxygen supply in those fires, there is also the issue of 'compartmentalisation' in that the fuel sources are 'en bloc', whereas in the rubble pile of 9/11 the fuel sources were diffused amongst a massive amount of non combustible debris.

http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/Crews-expect-to-extinguish-Concord-fire-Thursday-night-111215084.html

Officials believe spontaneous combustion may have caused the fire. The debris pile was roughly 50-feet deep.

Officials say it could have been burning for days, even weeks, before the smoldering reached the top, and the oxygen.

Content from External Source

This appears to be a massive refuse dump which is not predominently underground.

Already, firefighters have been on the scene for the last 72 hours where the fire is in a pile of debris about 50 feet deep.

On Wednesday, firefighters were dousing the huge debris fire with water for the first time since the blaze started a few days earlier.
The debris mountain is four-stories tall, and about as wide as a football field. The material is mainly lumber with some stumps and is mostly "vegetative" with some dirt mixed in, which makes it hard for water to penetrate, officials said.

Fire Chief Randy Holloway said crews are making progress, but had to wait before dousing the flames with more water until wind direction changed.

The wind would have made heavy smoke and steam drift over nearby neighborhoods, making the situation worse.

WBTV got an up close view of the debris pile, which looks like a volcano. Pockets of smoke can be seen escaping all the way around the charred mountain. It's a dump area for Overcash Gravel and Grading on Shelton Road.

Content from External Source

I think there are a number of issues around the 'hotspots'.

1) How did they manage to increase in temperature from a temperature much lower than the original fires to temperatures far in excess of the primary fires from which they originate?
2) Why has it never happened before?
3) At what depth were these fires smouldering and how did they get sufficient oxygen even for smouldering?
4) Given the mix of non combustible debris with a much smaller amount of combustible debris, (90% to 10%)?.... how did the smouldering travel through the pile of mostly non combustible material.?
5) Why were the hotspots so localised?

Oxymoron · May 23, 2013

Cairenn said:
Do you remember the firepit that was covered with soil and allowed to sit for a week?

When one does Raku pottery firing, the pots with special glazes are pulled out of the kiln when they are glowing red hot. Then they are placed into a metal container with newspapers or straw or leaves, some organic combustible material (sometimes used motor oil is dripped on the organic material also). As soon as the pot hits it, the material starts flaming up, then you put a tight fitting lid on it. You may even line it with wet newspaper to make it more airtight. Then you go sit down for 15 or 30 min. You turn on the water hose, because as soon as you open the container, the fire will restart. The fire was starved of oxygen, so it restarts when oxygen reaches it.

I happen to like playing with and creating with fire.

I too love playing around with fires. I have spent many happy times chatting with a glass of wine around massive bonfires, long in the making and up to around five feet high with a broad base also around 5 feet and densely packed due to being built over time. Mostly they are comprised of vegetation and wood but sometimes there have been bits of steel attached to fence posts etc. These fires have roared for very many hours and yet the steel has never reached a glowing temperature even though it has been at the centre of the fire.

Mick West · May 23, 2013

Oxymoron said:
I think there are a number of issues around the 'hotspots'.

1) How did they manage to increase in temperature from a temperature much lower than the original fires to temperatures far in excess of the primary fires from which they originate?

Can you specify some numbers here?

2) Why has it never happened before?

It probably has. After earthquakes building burn for days. This was just a rather larger building than most.

3) At what depth were these fires smouldering and how did they get sufficient oxygen even for smouldering?

Through lots of little gaps. Same way as burning coal seams.

4) Given the mix of non combustible debris with a much smaller amount of combustible debris, (90% to 10%)?.... how did the smouldering travel through the pile of mostly non combustible material.?

It was not put though a blender. There would be pockets of different types of debris, like the contents of an office floor.

5) Why were the hotspots so localised?

Because they were in pockets.

What is the alternative theory that is being suggested here? Super slow burning thermite? Million degree thermite?

Grieves · May 23, 2013

Can you specify some numbers here?

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html
Temperatures of the hotspots as of the 16'th of September were as high as 746 degrees Celsius, readings taken through the insulation of the rubble itself.

It was not put though a blender.

True, the collapse of the towers were clearly far more destructive and energetic than anything a blender could ever hope to produce.

There would be pockets of different types of debris, like the contents of an office floor.

Nothing in the video of the collapses and the images of the rubble/comments from first responders afterward would suggest to me that any significant amount of office material from any particular floor would have survived general pulverization and dispersal throughout the pile. The largest piece of surviving office debris I've ever seen out of the wreckage was half of a mangled filing cabinet.

What is the alternative theory that is being suggested here? Super slow burning thermite? Million degree thermite?

That an intense chemical, perhaps explosive reaction/s in each of the towers resulted in a buildup of extremely hot material in each debris-pile, perhaps around the site of the actual reaction/detonation, fed by organic elements in the debris which acted as fuel to sustain them for weeks on end. Rather than smouldering coals somehow building up into extremely hot burns over five days on three separate occasions, implying the thermal imaging was documenting risen temperatures in the wake of the collapse, I'd suggest that, though the burn was fueled by debris, this intense chemical reaction was of course no longer taking place, and so what the thermal imaging picked up was the hotspots having cooled from even higher temperatures, a cooling process which continued slowly through the following days. You may find this notion ludicrous based on the premise of the collapses being deliberate, but discounting the cause of the hotspots for a moment, what's more likely? That the thermal imaging picked up temperatures that had been rising since the collapse, or temperatures that had been cooling since the collapse?

Mick West · May 23, 2013

I think it's most likely that the hot spots were the result of sporadic pockets of fire, burning at temperatures up to 1000C. See:

http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

In particular:

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...trucfire/CaseStudy/steelComposite/default.htm

In a well-ventilated compartment the duration and/or the severity of the time-temperature environment is generally less than in a Standard Fire Test. The effect of ventilation and fire load on fire severity is illustrated in Figure 2. Fire tests were conducted in compartments where the fire load and the natural ventilation were varied. The well ventilated compartments experienced lower temperatures and fires of shorter duration. In Figure 2 the numbers identified with each curve indicate the fire load density in kg/m2 (ie 60, 30 or 15) and the ventilation area as a proportion of the façade area (ie ½ or ¼).
The compartments used in the tests were small by modern standards but the results are indicative of the influence of fire load and ventilation on the time-temperature environment generated within fire compartments.

Content from External Source

Grieves · May 23, 2013

I think it's most likely that the hot spots were the result of sporadic pockets of fire, burning at temperatures up to 1000C.

So you believe burning rubble within the piles themselves, in the case of each collapse, generated new fires within the piles which spread to the size and ferocity necessary to account for the thermal imaging? That the thermal imaging depicted temperatures which had gone up since the collapse, not gone down?

Mick West · May 23, 2013

Grieves said:
So you believe burning rubble within the piles themselves, in the case of each collapse, generated new fires within the piles which spread to the size and ferocity necessary to account for the thermal imaging? That the thermal imaging depicted temperatures which had gone up since the collapse, not gone down?

I think those images simple indicated the fires that were burning at the the time the images were taken, Sept 16th, five days after the collapse.

It does not exactly take much of a fire to produce a hot spot. Consider:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

There are other red/orange spots that show in the images in the area south of the World Trade Center zone. These are hot spots from chimneys or heating exhaust vents and are normal and not other uncontrolled fires.

Content from External Source

Mick West · May 23, 2013

For a little light relief, here's an illustration of how things can flare up after they fall. Skip to 0:24 for the collapse.

WTC Hotspots how did they form and sustained for so long?

Banned

Banned

Senior Member.

Senior Member.

Closed Account

Banned

Banned

Senior Member.

Senior Member

Closed Account

Banned

Closed Account

Closed Account

Senior Member

Closed Account

Banned

Administrator

Banned

Senior Member

Administrator

Administrator

Senior Member

Administrator

Senior Member

Senior Member.

Administrator

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member.

Banned

Administrator

Administrator

Banned

Banned

Administrator

Senior Member

Administrator

Senior Member

Administrator

Administrator

Similar threads